Leaside Playground Correspondence

From Belinda Cole to Peter Notaro, August 12, 2010

Can I give you a call this afternoon at 4:15 pm to ask you a few questions?

I am interested in city projects funded by the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF). I have read over the staff report, for which Lynda Tachereau is listed as a contact person.

Here are my questions and the information I'm looking for:

1. How are changes made the the federal- city ISF agreement, (e.g. when people become aware of an error, or a change in the project?)

2. What is the wording of the agreement about changes?

3. Are you aware of circumstances in which changes have been made? (I'm just curious about how the changes are made, and the nature of changes required, not specific details).

4. I'd like to get a copy of the agreement.

I'm also trying to chase this information down through the federal folks.

Thanks so much for your help with this Peter. If 4:15 pm or later doesn't work for you, can you give me a time when I can call tomorrow?

Thanks for your help.

From Peter Notaro to Belinda Cole , August 16, 2010

In response to your voicemail follow-up question, yes, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to amend original stated project scope, i.e. original intent for works at R.V Burgess, under the federal Infrastructure Stimulus Fund program. As mentioned during the call, the City cannot move funding from one ISF project to another.

The formal ISF policy and procedure for changes to projects makes explicit that Canada reserves the right to accept or refuse any proposed cost or scope changes submitted for consideration by the funding recipient (the City). Changes are reviewed via a revised application to Infrastructure Canada and scope changes that increase the project cost are not permitted.

Hope this answers your question.

From Belinda Cole to Peter Notaro, August 25, 2010

I'd like to talk to you about this and to follow up on any conversations you may have had with people from Parks. Could you suggest a time tomorrow that would work for you? Would you please also forward me your phone number which I've misplaced?

From Peter Notaro to Belinda Cole , Sept 1, 2010

Apologies for the delay.

City Parks, Forestry and Recreation has provide the following input, highlighted in red below, addressing your specific questions.

Please don't hesitate to contact me should you have further questions or concerns.

From Belinda Cole to Peter Notaro, August 17, 2010
Peter Notaro replies in red

I'd appreciate it if you could follow up with Parks on this issue. I've spoken to Jutta Mason to get some more detailed information on the R.V.Burgess playground below and I've outlined our questions.

- In a "1999-2005 playground upgrades" table sent by Jamie Warren (Capital Projects) to Satinder Sahota on October 9, 2009, R.V.Burgess was priority-ranked 3-4, Leaside was ranked 8. http://celos.ca/wiki/uploads/CityParks/CSA-ModifiedSheets99-04.pdf (items 506, 507 and 511).

The CSA Program, which was implemented in 1999 through 2004, required playgrounds to be repaired, upgraded or replaced to meet the revised Canadian Standard's Association (CSA) guidelines. The table you refer to ranked playgrounds on the basis of compliance with CSA.

Despite this, Leaside seems to have received a new playground structure in 2005.

The replacement of the Leaside Park play structure was the result of a Council Approved capital project sponsored by the Councillor at that time and included work at Jenner Jean Marie CC, Trace Manes CC, Talbot Park, Leaside Park and RV Burgess Park.

- Presumably that's why it was not listed for "enhancement" until 2014 in the city's current list: http://www.celos.ca/wiki/uploads/CityParks/PFR_2009CapitalBudget_Enhancement.pdf

How did Leaside get on the Stimulus fund list for $200,000? There are no other playgrounds after 2011 on that list. How did it "leapfrog" over other playgrounds.

The Play Enhancement Programme was introduced into the PFR Capital Plan in 2004 as a city wide initiative to replace old style play equipment with new modern stand alone multi component play structures. Priorities for these sites were assessed and ranked by Park's staff.

To clarify, the Leaside ISF project is a combination of two. One is the playground, the other the trail and path system. These were included on a list submitted for consideration, and approved for ISF funding.

Inexplicably, on the city's "playground enhancement" list, RV Burgess was not listed for a play structure until 2015.

Unfortunately, when the play structure was removed due to safety concerns, the information was not captured in the Capital Play Enhancement program.

- Re public consultation: Council passed a "guideline" that appears to make this unnecessary http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-26065.pdf, and there appears to have been no consultation at any other point, for any of the playgrounds on the city's enhancements list.

- Re environmental assessments: The Stimulus Funds applications http://celos.ca/wiki/uploads/FederalStimulusFunding/RInC-Program_ApplicationForm.pdf state N/A for playground environmental assessments, and that was accepted by the other levels of government.

Other ways to proceed on a priority basis to get R.V. Burgess the playground equipment it has been without for years:

1. If the $200,000 budget for Leaside can't be moved, the city could withdraw that project and use the municipal portion of the funds ($132,000) to install a playground at RV Burgess. Presenting that option to Council could open up a long-overdue look at the PF&R playground enhancement program.

Currently the installation of a new senior play structure is proposed for 2011 in the upcoming capital budget submission.

2. Alternatively, since many very sound and recent existing playground structures are being removed from the 24 playgrounds slated for RInC funds http://celos.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=PlaygroundProjects-RInC.FrontPage, RV Burgess Park could get some of the discarded equipment instead of taking it to the dump. That would mean consultation between Parks (with photos) and the RV Brugess park users. This could be settled at a single meeting, if Parks was well prepared with photos.

There is work underway to relocate the existing junior play structure from Leaside Park to RV Burgess.

Amy Sutherland wrote, September 5, 2010

2 things still confuse me:

1. He didn't really answer your question about how Leaside leapfrogged over the other playgrounds. For the 24 playgrounds that will be replaced, what year do they go up to on the list?

2. This is the first time I have heard of a NEW senior play structure for RV Burgess in 2011. I have heard from the Parks Supervisor that they are trying to see if they can relocate an unused senior structure from Thorncliffe school to the park if it needs to be removed for the school expansion.

From Jutta Mason Sept.13 2010

I had a reply from freedom of information about the Leaside playground (and also, unasked, about R.V.Burgess) that's quite puzzling.

I'm guessing that the $39,000 for R.V.Burgess in 2005 ("100% completed") was the waterplay and the saucer swings and that net thing that was soon removed? Am I remembering right, that the blue Henderson play structure was not removed until 2006?

If new waterplay equipment was the main cost, it's pretty remarkable that five years later there's another Stimulus Fund project allocating $80,000 to fix it.... I guess you might like to ask the candidates for Councillor if these puzzles are of any interest to them.

It would probably be a good idea to follow this up with an FOI request for "Quotation Request No.3717-05-5098" and for all documents relating to the Asset Management Program. That second question might throw some light on how R.V. Burgess got so far down the list, although it won't show how Leaside leapfrogged right to the front of the line again.

Re the puzzle of a "new senior play structure" in 2011 when it was previously scheduled for 2014 at the earliest -- my guess is that the multiple inquiries from the TPWC and articles in the press are producing results.